Federal Watch

Constitutional Convention

There are those who say the Constitution is no longer adequate to its purpose and should be amended or replaced. Article V of the Constitution prescribes the only two methods for amending it. So far, it has been done only by proposal of Congress. The other method -- proposal by a Constitutional Convention called at the request of two thirds of the legislatures of the several States -- has never been used, perhaps upon the advice of Jefferson, who opposed it. The Constitution places no restrictions upon the activity of such a convention; and several judges, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, have alarmingly said it cannot be limited! Even if called for a specific purpose, a convention could jack up the title and run a whole new document underneath it! There is ample precedent for just such action. The 1787 Convention was called for the specific purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. They threw out even the title and rules for ratification and started over.

When New York called for a constitutional convention to add a bill of rights, Jefferson opposed the idea:

"In this way, the whole fabric would be submitted to alteration. Its [the Constitution's] friends, therefore, unite in endeavoring to have the first method [resolution by Congress] adopted, [which it was]."

Term Limits Petition is ConCon Initiative

Gains Ballot Access in Nevada
Barred in Oklahoma

Those pushing for the ConCon have done so under the guise of several different issues. Earlier it was a balanced budget amendment, now it is Term Limits. Most people are not aware of what they are signing when they sign the Term Limits petition.

Because of the deceptive tactics used in gathering signatures in the 18 targeted states, most people have no idea they actually signed a petition to require that their state legislatures make an official call to the U.S. Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention. Rather, they believe they have petitioned their legislatures to enact term limits. It's not surprising then, that the measure has gained ballot access in Nevada, and has undoubtedly done so in many of the other states.

The first line of defense against this outrageous deceit is education. Most voters would be extremely hesitant to allow politicians (and the mass media) to tamper with our Constitution. It is likely that if U.S. Term Limits were honest about the true purpose of the petition drive, the initiative would fail. Articles exposing this scheme have appeared in various publications, including the May 1996 issue of The Phyllis Schlafly Report, and the August issue of the St. Louis Metro Voice.

The petition has been declared unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, barring ballot access here. If the initiative gains ballot access in your State, there are two avenues of action remaining:

1. Voters can send a request to the Secretary of State's office asking that their names be withdrawn from the petition. It will only count if the requests are received before the petitions are certified, but in any case, everyone who signed the petition and now wish they hadn't, should send in withdrawal requests.

2. We must insist that the Secretary of State clearly explain (in the explanation her office writes on the ballot regarding the term limits issue) that there is a provision calling for a Constitutional Convention. If this is not done, the public will continue to be in the dark as to the true nature of this ballot initiative.

Find out if there are similar avenues of action in your state. Contact your state's Eagle Forum Chapter, or send us an E-mail.

The foregoing information was provided by Janine Hansen of Sparks, Nevada; National Constitution Issues Chairman & Nevada State President for Eagle Forum.